In his debate, John Kerry baffled us all when he explained his thinking about pre-emptive war - the US had the right to act alone, as long as it was able to pass the "global test". Now the blogosphere is alive with savants trying to figure out just what that might mean.
And move over Scrappleface! A brilliant new comedic talent has emerged, as Juan Cole mocks Kerry's supporters with a parody of an attempt to parse Kerry's words and find true meaning. I hate to step on his punchline, but the bit where we learn that "global" means "domestic" is priceless.
Mr. Cole is also witty enough to present a slightly longer debate excerpt. Let's look at this:
KERRY: ...Here we have our own secretary of state who has had to apologize to the world for the presentation he made to the United Nations.
I mean, we can remember when President Kennedy in the Cuban missile crisis sent his secretary of state to Paris to meet with DeGaulle. And in the middle of the discussion, to tell them about the missiles in Cuba, he said, "Here, let me show you the photos." And DeGaulle waved them off and said, "No, no, no, no. The word of the president of the United States is good enough for me."
I can remember when the word of a Presidential candidate was good enough for me, too. But are we really going to take the word of a Kennedy-lover on a story like this? Trust, but verify!
Kerry's fun litle Kennedy-boosting, Bush-bashing story is apochryphal now, according to the fellow who was there:
As a source of information, overhead photography has always won high marks," concluded the late Sherman Kent, a senior CIA officer who accompanied former Secretary of State Dean Acheson to France during the crisis to brief French President Charles de Gaulle on the U.S. evidence.
Kennedy administration officials voiced concern that allies might balk at the "credibility of photographic evidence," Kent recalled. "It was the only solid evidence there was."
But government leaders in Britain, France, Germany and Canada uniformly accepted the proof, including de Gaulle, a legendary skeptic.
"Not once in the course of my briefing was there any hint of incredulity on the part of the general," Kent later wrote. "If he was not perfectly satisfied that the pictures were scenes from Cuba and the weapons those which I asserted them to be, he gave me no inkling of doubt."
And torn from the pages of Moscow's answer to the NY Times, we find a similar account:
Sherman Kent recorded in detail how the U-2 photographs were brought to some American allies, and what their reactions were...
...General de Gaulle accepted President Kennedy's word initially on faith, though later he inspected the photographs in great detail, and was impressed with the quality of them.
And what was De Gaulle going to say, anyway - "We have no spy planes or relevant expertise in our government, but we doubt you regardless?" Just wondering.
We applaud Mr. Cole for introducing this story into the discussion, since we note that President Kennedy was seeking allied support prior to taking US action. This confounds the attempt by some to explain that Kerry simply intends to take the Global Test after he graduates, or gets his driver's license, or whatever it is the darn test applies to.
We only have a few days until the Kerry Clarification, in which Kerry "re-explains" the "Global Test", and we start hooting that he was for the Global Test until he was against it, so I want to get this other cheap shot in while there is still time.
Wesley Clark was (as those with long memories can attest) a one-time candidate for President and is currently touted by the WaPo as a candidate for Secretary of Defense in a Kerry Administration. Consequently, his thoughts on pre-emption might be valuable in guessing what this "Global Test" might look like.
Fortunately, he wrote a long Washington Monthly article outlining the process he would have recommended in going after Afghanistan following 9/11. A more bellicose Andrew Sullivan was unimpressed; a younger "MinuteMan" was equally skeptical and less kind (the unkindness consisted of excerpting the General).
So, as an example of how a leader preps for the Global Test, the General may provide a helpful guide into the thinking of a Kerry Administration. Run, you fools!
UPDATE: Hmm, I might be wrong about Juan Cole. Not the "comedic" bit, though...
UPDATE 2: The quips keep coming! Various lefties have hit upon the theme that, if you simply strike "prove" and "test" from his statement, Kerry is echoing the Declaration of Independence! Bravo! And if I strike Bush's six months of diplomacy, starting with his September UN speech and ending with his appearance in the Azores, then I can conclude that he made no attempt to inform the world of his motives and intentions.
Sorry, gents, Juan Cole was funnier.
We all agree that seeking domestic and international support is sensible. Still unanswered from the Kerry side - what does a president do if he thinks his presentation will fail the global test?
Also unanswered - is it wise to have a President who is this opaque on a critical topic, or will his confusing rhetoric prompt miscalculation by our enemies?
End the mixed messages.
MORE: (We are also opposed to mexed missages. Our position on Mexican missilage is under review).
UPDATE 3: When the intellectual well runs dry, throw some of the mud on the bottom - Jesse Taylor informs me that this post is stupid.
Tough to rebut a well-crafted argument like that. I'll keep "Yeah, well when Bush starts up the draft, your momma's gonna be wearing Army boots" in my backpocket, and go with a more easily understood "Is Not!".
And why the mental exhaustion at Pandagon? Jesse has been knocking himself out with breakthrough coverage of the "Did Kerry cheat at the debate" story. Let's see, one, two, three, four posts, each making the point that anyone who follows the cheating story seriously is silly and easily distracted. I would say by the fourth post, he is arguing by example.
I should also note that Bill at INDC, who broke this, kept better perspective.
"Some think we can scare the world into cooperating, but that has never worked for long."
Scaring them into cooperating is probably not possible. Scaring them out of cooperating with Islamist terrorists, however, seems perfectly reasonable.
"Cite me an example of him supporting al Quaida, a link between Iraq and 9/11."
There's a couple of links to Al Qaeda above (Zarqawi, and the stuff in the 9/11 commission report--none terribly strong), no significant ones to 9/11 I'm aware of. And I'd certainly agree that if you're aiming for vengeance for 9/11, Iraq would be a poor choice.
But if the focus is preventing a future terrorist attack, states who sponsor Islamist terror (of any brand name) and especially those who provide chem/bio expertise, top the list. And since we were still technically at war with Iraq--with cease-fire terms prohibiting precisely that--it was a particularly apropos case.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 05, 2004 at 02:56 PM
Cecil, that was a truly pathetic attempt. Links to anti-Iranian groups? Can you really convince yourself that this administration is concerned with anti-Iranian terrorists?
But the important point is that Bush argued for this war based on the connection between Saddam and al-Qaeda, not Abu Nidal or Palestinian groups...and sure as hell not anti-Iranian militants. We know now that this was based on, in your own words, no hard evidence.
"The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." GW. Bush
"We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases." GW. Bush
"We need to think about Saddam Hussein using al Qaeda to do his dirty work, to not leave fingerprints behind." GW. Bush
"This is a person who has had contacts with al Qaeda" GW. Bush
"He is a man who would likely -- he is a man who would likely team up with al Qaeda. He could provide the arsenal for one of these shadowy terrorist networks. He would love to use somebody else to attack us, and not leave fingerprints behind." GW. Bush
And why is Rumsfeld claiming we haven't found any WMD? Maybe you should show him your evidence, that 10 year old artillery shell is oh so convincing.
Posted by: dai | October 05, 2004 at 03:12 PM
"All Kerry did was re-state a common sense principle that has always been a key part of American foreign policy."
That you apply a "test" that will depend on later data? Sorry, not only is it not a key part of American foreign policy, it's nonsensical.
"The Bush administration didn't make an honest mistake in this, they knew all along that the information they had was unreliable."
Good mindreading. Obviously the incorrect intelligence estimates must have been dishonest as well . . . except every review so far has said exactly the opposite.
"No one has ever denied that Saddam had WMDs, chemical weapons anyway, at one time. We provided them to him back when he was our friend."
Ah, if the insecticide "precursors" we provided Saddam back in the day count as "chemical weapons," then we found plenty in Iraq after the war. For example:
"The fact that some guerillas found one old shell that may have contained Sarin (IIRC, it was never proved conclusively) is a far cry from the war justification."
The sarin was proved conclusively, and it was a binary mix-in-flight type which Iraq claimed to've had none of. And if you look at the intelligence estimates, you'll see the vast majority of the calculated "stockpiles" was taking Iraq's previously admitted stocks and subtracting what was certified destroyed. The "old" shells were precisely what we thought were still there. (Mostly incorrectly, as it happens.)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 05, 2004 at 03:21 PM
"'We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.' GW. Bush"
"We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda's leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." George Tenet (9/11 commission report)
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 05, 2004 at 03:29 PM
"That you apply a "test" that will depend on later data? "
NOOOOOO, Cecil. Do you even try to follow this, or do you just enjoy chasing straw men down blind alleys? The test is only that you will have ensured that you will be ABLE to justify it at a later date. NOT that you will need later data. Is this a reading comprehension problem?
Your argument about the one Sarin shell is so weak it almost looks like a joke. This whole thing is pathetic, but like I said, it has given Kerry a beautiful opportunity to take Bush to school again. These guys are really off their game. Too bad they blew all their smears so early on. Now all they have to rely on is phony terror alerts...Countdown to gridlock, New York! Can't they pull one of these bogus things in Atlanta or Dallas next time? You guys seem to enjoy it all so much more.
Posted by: Hrubec | October 05, 2004 at 03:39 PM
"The test is only that you will have ensured that you will be ABLE to justify it at a later date."
Whatever. If that seems sensible to you, great. The only "justification" provided for in our Constitution is a subsequent election. Obviously you guys think this will help you . . . I think you're wrong. We'll find out before too long. Cheers.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 05, 2004 at 03:52 PM
"First, it is if you want to claim there were "no WMDs in Iraq," or that Saddam was complying with 1441. Second, it depends on content."
Do you really believe that we found was anything significant?
Posted by: Brian | October 05, 2004 at 06:27 PM
That you apply a "test" that will depend on later data? Sorry, not only is it not a key part of American foreign policy, it's nonsensical.
That you only go to war when there's a credible threat, and you have sound intelligence that makes you believe you'll be able to prove (to your people and the world) that there really was a credible threat after the fact. Bush can't do that with Iraq. That he believed there was a credible thread is not enough --- a belief is not a fact.
"We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda's leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs." George Tenet (9/11 commission report)
Sought contacts does not equal contacts made. I can seek a job with NASA as a rocket scientist, but I'm not likely to get one. Yes, there are a few indicators that Iraq perhaps provided some aid to some al-Qaeda members, but it was quite some time ago, not recently, and therefore, nothing that neccesitated current action. Sadaam Hussein was not a threat.
Whatever. If that seems sensible to you, great. The only "justification" provided for in our Constitution is a subsequent election.
Nobody said the global test was in the Constitution, but it was the practice of many Presidents throughout modern history, such as Eisenhower and Kennedy. It's not a legal matter per the Constitution, it's both an ethical and practical matter. Ethical because it assures you don't fight wars in the wrong way for the wrong reasons, and practical because it's a hell of a lot easier on your nation to only fight ethical wars. Ethical wars don't come along too often --- warfare is very rarely neccesary. Extracurricular wars, like this one, are disgraceful.
Ally
Posted by: Ally | October 05, 2004 at 07:57 PM
"Do you really believe that we found was anything significant? "
What do you mean by significant? Could even the paltry amounts found, if used correctly in a terrorist attack, have killed thousands of Americans? Yes. Would they have been? No, very unlikely (unless, as Kay suggested, the chaos allowed a terror group to get one by accident).
But the fact that guerrilas, looking for a normal artillery shell, mistakenly used a chem round for a roadside bomb in an incompetent attack (and nothing else makes sense, since a mix-in-flight round is completely useless as an IED) is a very good indication that a certain dictator had no intention of shutting down his weapons programs. It also tells us:
1) Saddam was hiding his weapons, to the point of using nondescript markings on special weapons, and he lost track of some of them.
2) Unless that particular insurgent won the lottery, there's more adrift out there.
3) The programs were hidden, not eradicated. Which suggests they'd be reconstituted five minutes after sanctions were lifted.
The "we could have waited" camp assume we could just keep an army on their border for as long as it took. Which is wrong for a bunch of reasons. We were going to get to "use-it-or-lose-it" fairly quickly. If there was a reasonable likelihood Saddam would have eventually given up WMDs and terror sponsorship, there might have been a way out that didn't involve war, and the "no justification" camp would have a credible argument. But in my opinion, that's pure moonshine.
(BTW, this thread is getting impractical for me to scroll through. Since Tom's got another more recent version open, I'm giving up on this one.) Cheers.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 05, 2004 at 08:09 PM
One more time:
"A new CIA assessment undercuts the White House's claim that Saddam Hussein maintained ties to al-Qaida, saying there's no conclusive evidence that the regime harbored Osama bin Laden associate Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."
And...
"He added that there are now questions about earlier administration assertions that al-Zarqawi received treatment at a Baghdad hospital in May 2002.
"The evidence is that Saddam never gave Zarqawi anything," another U.S. official said.
A congressional official said members of Congress had received an intelligence report in late August containing similar findings."
Also,
"There's no dispute that al-Zarqawi spent time in Iraq before the U.S. invasion, but virtually all that time was in a portion of northeastern Iraq that wasn't under Saddam's control."
No links.
Quotes are from:
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9836140.htm
Ally
Posted by: Ally | October 05, 2004 at 08:10 PM
But the fact that guerrilas, looking for a normal artillery shell, mistakenly used a chem round for a roadside bomb in an incompetent attack (and nothing else makes sense, since a mix-in-flight round is completely useless as an IED) is a very good indication that a certain dictator had no intention of shutting down his weapons programs. It also tells us:
Actually, all it tells us is that he once had weapons and some got left behind. There's unsecured nuclear and chemical materials in so many places; it's an issue, but not the same one you're making it.
If there was a reasonable likelihood Saddam would have eventually given up WMDs and terror sponsorship, there might have been a way out that didn't involve war, and the "no justification" camp would have a credible argument.
First of all, how do you get him to give up WMDs he didn't have. Just because they were in the area doesn't mean they were under his control (what little evidence you've given does not suggest they were --- actually, it suggests carelessness). And how exactly was he sponsoring terrorists? Any specifics there?
The real issue we actually faced was getting Sadaam to cooperate with the U.N., and the threat of force was likely the leverage required to make him do so (incidentally that is one of the reasons Bush gave in his speech for the Congress authorizing that force) since many signs indicate that he was grudingly allowing inspectors in.
Ally
Posted by: Ally | October 05, 2004 at 08:20 PM
"Just because they were in the area doesn't mean they were under his control (what little evidence you've given does not suggest they were --- actually, it suggests carelessness)."
Ally, 12 years after the Gulf War, we were finding various banned missiles, chemical shells and rockets (minus agent), and this unmarked binary shell. There's also the little matter of clandestine labs and records showing the programs were still being funded, and Kay's report on: "dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002." None of that squares with an innocent explanation. Added to the fact we know he played us through 1998, and your attempt to portray Saddam as an innocent victim is just laughable.
The intelligence estimates about ongoing production were clearly wrong. But the latter claim he was complying with 1441 is just as clearly bogus. And it's hard to see why he'd go to the effort of deceiving the last round of inspectors if he had any intention of changing.
Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 05, 2004 at 09:18 PM
I said:
"The Bush administration didn't make an honest mistake in this, they knew all along that the information they had was unreliable."
Cecil said:
Good mindreading. Obviously the incorrect intelligence estimates must have been dishonest as well . . . except every review so far has said exactly the opposite.
Now I say:
I'm talking about things such as the fact that many experts were saying the aluminum tubes were probably not intended to be centrifuge parts. While Rice and Cheney and others were claiming the tubes had no other possible use, they already knew that many experts believed otherwise.
The same thing happened with the UAVs, which the administration insisted were intended to spread chemical weapons. The Air Force was telling them that they could not be used for that purpose.
I'm not saying the Bush administration was just making things up. They had information to support their claims. But they also had information to raise questions and doubts about the way they chose to see things, and they didn't bother to mention those publicly.
And none of this is "mind reading." It's all been reported in the press, after the fact. I'm not surprised that you are not aware of that.
Posted by: Flash | October 06, 2004 at 10:11 AM
"I'm talking about things such as the fact that many experts were saying the aluminum tubes were probably not intended to be centrifuge parts."
Do yourself a favor and read the declassified intelligence estimates. (Like this one.) It's shot through with qualifiers, including the "alternate view" that: "INR is not persuaded that the tubes in question are intended for use as centrifuge rotors." But the "expert" opinion is in the body of the report:
Using precisely the same logic proffered by the administration. It's also worth pointing out that even the "minority view" included:Attempting to characterize this as the experts on one side, and the Administration on the other, is nonsense. Yes, there were some dissenting voices. But the preponderance of the expert opinion was consistent, in broad agreement, and wrong.Posted by: Cecil Turner | October 06, 2004 at 12:58 PM